1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-04858
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Applicant signed her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on May 12, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on October 6, 2009 detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that provided the basis for its
preliminary decision to deny her a security clearance. The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 13, 2009. She answered
the SOR in writing on October 30, 2009. Applicant requested a hearing before an
GE 1; AE A; AE B.1
GE 1; Tr. 29-31.2
2
administrative judge. DOHA received the request and Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on March 30, 2010. DOHA assigned the case to me on April 20,
2010. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 7, 2010, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on May 26, 2010. The Government offered five exhibits (GE) 1 through 5,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on
her own behalf. She submitted three exhibits (AE) A through C, which were received
and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing (Tr.) on June 9, 2010. I held the record open until June 10, 2010, for Applicant
to submit additional matters. Following a telephone conference with Applicant and
Department Counsel regarding additional time to submit necessary documentation, I
extended the time for submission of documentation until July 1, 2010. Applicant timely
submitted five additional exhibits, AE D through AE H, without objection. The record
closed on July 1, 2010.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all factual allegations in the SOR.
Her admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following additional findings of
fact.  
Applicant, who is 27 years old, works as an administrative assistant for a
Department of Defense contractor. She began this position in March 2009. Her
managers describe her as a valuable asset to their office. She demonstrates an
excellent work ethic, performs her duties in an exemplary manner, and assumes
additional responsibilities as needed. She shows good judgment and integrity. They
recommend her for a clearance and want to keep her as an employee.1
Applicant graduated from high school in 2001 and attended college for one year.
In February 2003, she enlisted in the Air Force. Applicant attended college part-time
while in the Air Force. In February 2007, she received an honorable discharge. She
immediately began working for a contractor doing the same job she last performed
when she was in the Air Force. Her then employer decided to contract her position on a
month-to-month basis at the end of her first year of employment. She left the position in
March 2008 because of the uncertainty of stable employment with the new contracting
procedure. She worked in a jewelry store from April 2008 until March 2009, when the
jewelry company went bankrupt. She continued to attend college part-time, using the GI
bill to pay for her education.2
In October 2006, Applicant purchased a house for $138,000. She financed the
entire purchase through two mortgages. Her primary mortgage was for $137,000 and
her second mortgage was for $6,900. Including taxes and insurance, her monthly
GE 2; AE H; Tr. 14-16, 23-26.3
Tr. 15, 22-24.4
GE 1; Tr. 14, 27-28.5
The SOR does not allege any delinquent credit cards and Applicant testified that she was paying her credit6
card debt monthly. See SOR; Tr. 34-36.
3
mortgage payments on the house totaled $1,042. Her then boyfriend lived with her, and
they evenly split the costs for living in the house. On May 1, 2007, he ended their
relationship. Her boyfriend lived in the house for three more months. Starting in August
2007, she paid all the expenses for the house. By July 2008, Applicant could no longer
afford to live in her house on her own. In August 2008, she submitted a hardship
application to her mortgagee seeking to reduce her monthly mortgage payments. The
mortgagee offered to reduce her monthly payment by $80 to $100. Since this amount
did not help her financially, Applicant moved out of the house on October 1, 2008 and
allowed the house to go into foreclosure. To her knowledge, the house has not been
sold. She has not had any correspondence from the mortgagee in some time. After the
hearing, she attempted to contact the mortgagee and its lawyer to determine the status
of the foreclosure on her house. They have not responded to her.3
When Applicant purchased her house in 2006, her net monthly income from the
Air Force totaled $2,600. Her net monthly income as a civilian for the same job totaled
$2,200. When she left the Air Force, Applicant had approximately $2,000 in savings.
She exhausted these funds by July 2008, trying to pay her bills. At the present time, she
has $8 in her savings account.4
In 2004, Applicant’s father under went treatment for cancer. In 2007, his cancer
returned. Over the next 18 months, she made four plane trips to visit her dying father.
She paid $250 to $300 for each ticket and lost between $1,800 and $2,000 in income
because she had exhausted her leave and was required to use leave without pay. The
expenses to travel to visit her dying father impaired her ability to keep up with her
mortgage payments.5
Applicant is engaged and living with her fiancé. She earns $1,173 in gross pay bi-
weekly and $976 in net income bi-weekly for a net monthly income of $1,952. She
shares living expenses with her boyfriend. Her monthly expenses include $470 for
utilities including a cell phone, $160 for car insurance and gasoline, $250 for food, $60
for prescription medicine, and $200 for miscellaneous expenses and clothing. At the
hearing, Applicant stated that she was paying at least the minimum payment on her
credit cards and working towards paying off her credit cards one at a time.  She6
retained a debt management company in May 2010. She consolidated all her credit
card debt into one payment, including one credit card which was past due. She pays
this company $291 a month, and made her first payment in May 2010. The company
GE 5; AE E; AE F; AE G.7
GE 2; GE 3; AE H.8
AE C.9
4
makes a payment each month to each of the five creditors in the plan. Her monthly
expenses total $1,431, leaving approximately $520 a month for debt repayment.7
Outside of her mortgage debt, the SOR listed one other unpaid debt, a utility bill
for $106. Applicant was unaware of this bill until she met with the investigator. She paid
this bill after the hearing. Her mortgage debt remains unresolved. She has not signed
the deed to this property over to the mortgagee nor has the mortgagee responded to
her recent requests for information.8
Applicant’s cousin wrote a letter of recommendation. She writes about their life-
long friendship. She admires Applicant’s dedication, strength and resilience, especially
since both of Applicant’s parents have died. Applicant is dependable, reliable, and
trustworthy.9
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
5
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and especially the following:
19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant developed significant financial problems when her first engagement
ended and she could not afford her monthly mortgage payment on her own. Her
property is in the foreclosure process and this debt is not resolved. These two
disqualifying conditions apply.
Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his10
[or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when
dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. BD. Jan. 12. 2007)(citing
ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000): ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999);
ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she maintained
contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current.
6
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
20(f), and especially the following:
20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person=s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances,10
20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control, and
20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant purchased her house, intending to marry her then boyfriend and fiancé.
Seven months later, he ended their relationship. He remained in the house for three
more months and continued to split the housing costs with her. After he left, she paid
the monthly mortgage on her own for more than a year, exhausting her savings while
doing so. In August 2008, she submitted a hardship package to her mortgagee in an
effort to reduce her monthly expenses on the house. The mortgagee offered to reduce
her payment a mere $80 to $100 a month, which did not significantly help her financial
situation. She decided to let the house go into foreclosure. She moved from the house
to less expensive housing and continued to pay her other bills.
While Applicant has not resolved her mortgagee debt issue, she pays all her
other debts and her share of her current monthly living expenses. In May 2010, she
contacted a debt solution company for assistance with paying her credit cards. She was
behind in the payment on one credit card only. With the help of this organization, she is
working to pay her five credit card debts in full. Her finances are under control. She paid
the one delinquent utility bill listed in the SOR. She has attempted to contact her
mortgagee and its attorney, but neither have returned her calls or made an effort to talk
with her. At this time, this creditor is refusing to work with her through no fault of her
own. Because of the creditor’s actions, she cannot resolve this debt. She has mitigated
the Government’s security concerns about her finances under AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and
20(d).
7
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or deny a
security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and
unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record,
not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then
whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but on a
reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus
exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In assessing whether an applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 200). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
8
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. As of May
2010, Applicant was liable for the balances on both the primary and secondary
mortgages on a home that she bought with her then boyfriend. With both incomes, she
paid the monthly mortgage payment on both loans. After their relationship ended and he
moved out, Applicant paid the full monthly payment for a time. However, with lost
income and travel expenses related to visiting her dying father, she was prevented from
continuing her mortgage payments. She moved out of the house and it is now in
foreclosure.  
Applicant attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the mortgage loans. Apart from an
initial offer to reduce her mortgage obligation by $80 to $100 per month, the mortgagee
has not been willing to work with her. But her mortgage debt is not likely to be a source
of improper pressure or duress. Applicant lives within her financial means. She pays her
credit card bills and her current living expenses on time, and she is working through a
debt solution company to reduce her overall credit card debt. Her employer considers
her a valuable worker and someone who performs her job extremely well. She is
respected for her work ethic. Her cousin presents a similar picture of Applicant as a
reliable, dependable, and trustworthy person. In financial cases, the issue is not simply
whether all the debts are paid: it is whether an applicant’s financial circumstances raise
concerns about his or her fitness to hold a security clearance. Applicant is a financially
responsible individual who entered into the mortgage debts in good faith, and the
circumstances surrounding her default do not raise concerns about her fitness to hold a
security clearance. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline F.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
9
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge